Carotid Bifurcation Hemodynamics in Older Adults: Effect of Measured Versus Assumed Flow Waveform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has illuminated differences in carotid artery blood flow rate dynamics of older versus young adults. To what degree flow waveform shape, and indeed the use of measured versus assumed flow rates, affects the simulated hemodynamics of older adult carotid bifurcations has not been elucidated. Image-based computational fluid dynamics models of N=9 normal, older adult carotid bifurcations were reconstructed from magnetic resonance angiography. Subject-specific hemodynamics were computed by imposing each individual's inlet and outlet flow rates measured by cine phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging or by imposing characteristic young and older adult flow waveform shapes adjusted to cycle-averaged flow rates measured or allometrically scaled to the inlet and outlet areas. Despite appreciable differences in the measured versus assumed flow conditions, the locations and extents of low wall shear stress and elevated relative residence time were broadly consistent; however, the extent of elevated oscillatory shear index was substantially underestimated, more by the use of assumed cycle-averaged flow rates than the assumed flow waveform shape. For studies of individual vessels, use of a characteristic flow waveform shape is likely sufficient, with some benefit offered by scaling to measured cycle-averaged flow rates. For larger-scale studies of many vessels, ranking of cases according to presumed hemodynamic or geometric risk is robust to the assumed flow conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".